New York, NY – A federal judge on Thursday denied an Ashton Plaintiff’s attempt to reopen or reconsider a prior ruling that rejected a damages claim tied to the September 11 attacks, holding firm that the plaintiff did not meet the stringent standards required to disturb the court’s earlier decision.
Court rejects “functional equivalent” argument
U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels refused a motion by Plaintiff Maxwell Sivin seeking vacatur—or, alternatively, reconsideration—of the court’s May 29 order that denied final damages judgments for claimants who are not immediate family members but argued they were the “functional equivalent.” The latest ruling leaves intact the denial of Sivin’s solatium claim and does not alter the court’s prior adoption of recommendations that limited solatium awards to those recognized as immediate family members under the framework used in the multidistrict litigation.
The motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6), and, in the alternative, under Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York. The court denied both avenues of relief, concluding that no basis existed to vacate the earlier order or to reconsider it.
Strict bar for reopening judgments
In laying out the legal standards, the court noted that Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment in limited scenarios—including mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud—and that subsection (6) is a narrow catchall reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.” Citing Supreme Court guidance, the decision emphasized that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in rare situations and that a movant seeking reconsideration must identify controlling authority or data the court overlooked that would reasonably change the outcome. The court found Sivin’s submission did not meet those thresholds.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 imposes a similarly high bar, requiring a concise showing of matters or controlling decisions that were not considered. The court determined that the plaintiff’s arguments repackaged points already presented and rejected, and did not introduce new controlling law or evidence that would warrant a different result.
Long-running MDL background
The denial follows Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s Reports and Recommendations issued on December 19, 2019, and January 21, 2020, which advised granting solatium damages to certain immediate family members while denying claims by several non-immediate family members, including Sivin. On March 9, 2020, four Ashton Plaintiffs objected to the portions of those reports addressing non-immediate family claims. After a de novo review, the court adopted the reports in full on May 29, affirming the denial of solatium to claimants who did not qualify as immediate family.
Sivin’s latest motion sought to unwind or revisit that outcome as to his individual claim only. The court held that the standards for vacatur and reconsideration were not satisfied, and it denied the motion in its entirety. The ruling does not alter awards previously granted to immediate family members nor the framework applied across the 03-MDL-1570 proceedings.
Key Points
- Judge George B. Daniels denied a motion to vacate or reconsider the prior denial of a non-immediate family solatium claim.
- The court found no “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6) and no overlooked controlling law under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
- The decision leaves intact the May 29 order adopting recommendations that limit solatium awards to immediate family members in the 9/11 MDL.
Final word: the court’s message was clear—without new law or evidence, closed doors stay shut.
